Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

'Real World' Photoshop Benchmark - Speed Test

17 seconds
then with google open:
Never done, then freeze
then with google closed
NINE minutes:49 s
Then again:
17 s

below see istat for slow version:


Mac Pro early 2009
2x2.26 GHz quad core intel xeon
16 GB ram
mercury extreme SSD
osx10.8.3
CS6
NVIDIA GeForce GT 120
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2013-04-06 at 11.06.19 AM.png
    Screen Shot 2013-04-06 at 11.06.19 AM.png
    45.8 KB · Views: 1,316
Just tried this today for the first time... 14.71 secs.

MacPro 4,1 2009 -- 2.93Ghz Quad
12GB Ram
1 TB Strip Startup (WD Black Caviar 500GB, SoftRaid)
128GB Crucial SSD scratch disk.
Mac OSX 10.6.8
ATI Radeon HD 4870 (512 MB VRam)
27" display - 2560 x 1440
Photoshop CS6
 
Macsonic said:
Not sure on this, did you try to set your history level to 1? Your photoshop ram set to maximum?
Click to expand...

These are my perfomance settings:

Let Photoshop use 10900 MB (max of the recommended range)
History states 1
cache levels 8
cache tile size 1024
use graphics processor ATI Radeon 5870
2 scratch disks: 1 SSD Free space 48 GB and 1 Raid disk: free space 1000 GB


Best results 29 seconds, still disappointing compared to the other users here. Did I make a mistake?
 
Last edited:
Mac Hammer Fan said:
These are my perfomance settings:

Let Photoshop use 10900 MB (max of the recommended range)
History states 1
cache levels 8
cache tile size 1024
use graphics processor ATI Radeon 5870
2 scratch disks: 1 SSD Free space 48 GB and 1 Raid disk: free space 1000 GB


Best results 29 seconds, still disappointing compared to the other users here. Did I make a mistake?
Click to expand...

Hi Mac Hammer Fan. Your settings looks fine to me. Sorry I am not sure what was missing in your speed test But don't ponder or worry on it too much. Your Geekbench score looks good and as long as your Mac Pro is working you should be okay.
 
I have two test results to post.

18.5 sec: Early 2009 2.66 quad 4.1, CS6, 14GB RAM, Samsung 840 SSD, OSX 10.8.3, NVidia GTX 650Ti

12.3 sec: Same machine as above, but now 3.33 hex 5.1. All else the same.

These figures reflect the overall improvement in many operations with this machine. My thanks to MacRumors Forums for showing me how to upgrade my 4 year old Mac!
 
Last edited:
11.1 Seconds

11.1 seconds,

Mac Pro 5.1
cpu 3.46 hex core
24gb ram
GTX 680 mac edition
ForceGT 240gb in raid 0
PS CS6
OSX 10.8.3 ML

Is my result fast?
 
Your result is fast!
Mine is 29-34 sec and slow, though I have a 5,1 Hex 3.33.
I still don't know what I have done wrong. I posted my settings before.
Strange, because other benchtests are fine.
 
Mac Hammer Fan said:
Your result is fast!
Mine is 29-34 sec and slow, though I have a 5,1 Hex 3.33.
I still don't know what I have done wrong. I posted my settings before.
Strange, because other benchtests are fine.
Click to expand...

Maybe run it with only one scratch disk, which should be separate from your system/program files...
 
Mac Hammer Fan said:
Your result is fast!
Mine is 29-34 sec and slow, though I have a 5,1 Hex 3.33.
Click to expand...

IMHO, this test is potentially flawed, as the speed differences between different PS-versions varies significantly (which one are you working on) and I remember someone noting, that even the amount of third party plug-ins/filters have an affect.

Mac Hammer Fan, If your machine works otherwise, and your only reason to worry is one shady/wobbly test, the I'd recommend not fretting.

RGDS,
 
Problem solved.

Photoshop CS6
11-12 sec. :)
MacPro Hex 3.33 with OWC SSD and ATI Radeon 5870.16 GB RAM
Photoshop CS3
65-69 sec :)
PowerMac G5 Dual Core 2.3 GeForce 6600 with 6.5 GB RAM
Photoshop CS6
4min 15sec :(
Macbook DC 2.2 Ghz Intel MA3100 with 4 GB RAM
(Former tests were with different speedtest: http://www.gavtrain.com/?p=1509)
 
Last edited:
15.7 seconds
Mac Pro 3,1 (Early 2008)
14GB RAM
ATI 5770
Scratch disk is 2x1TB hard drive/RAID 0
CS6
 
Since I am subscribed to this thread for whatever reason (I forgot), I will add my result after complying with almost all requirements this test wanted (all Photoshop settings, but did not restart my Mac or even closed the other nine applications besides Finder):

10.87 seconds

on a Hackintosh with these specs:
  • i7 3770K CPU with 3.5 GHz (four cores, two threads per core)
  • 32 GB of DDR3 RAM at 1600 MHz
  • GTX670 GPU from Nvidia/Asus
  • OS and applications stored on Samsung 840 256 GB SSD
  • scratch on second 750 GB partition of a 1.5 TB HDD, has 90 MB/s read and write speeds
  • Photoshop version 13.0.4 on Mac OS X 10.8.3
 
MacBook Pro (early 2011 - 13 inch)
2.3 Core i5
16GB ram
OS 10.8.3

CS6 25.79 sec
CS5.1 26.25 sec

both averaged from 5 tests
 
15.1 seconds

Mac Pro 3,1 (2008)
CPU 2x2.8 GHz "Eight-Core" Xeon
14 GB 800 MHz DDR2 RAM
NVIDIA GeForce GTX 570 1.2 GB
240GB Mercury Electra 3G SSD
PS CS6
OSX 10.8.3


This machine has really held up over the last five years. I use it every day for Final Cut Pro (7), After Effects and Photoshop; editing HD video, professionally. It's definitely 'fast enough' to get any job done. The addition of the SSD boot drive and a flashed GTX 570 has breathed new life into it. You can pick one of these up for as little as $650 on eBay now. If you're on a budget, I highly recommend it.
 
17.3 seconds
27'' iMac - Late 2009
OSX 10.7.5
16 GB 1067 MHz DDR3 RAM
ATI Radeon HD 4850 512 MB

Photoshop CS 6 was used after following the readme instructions.

I'm a video editor and photographer and I use Final Cut Pro and Photoshop regularly.
So far I am okay with the speed of my machine, but I'm wondering when I finally pull the trigger on a faster machine and if I go with the new Mac Pro in the fall or go macbook pro.
 
I forgot to re-post my results after an upgrade.

Original Specs:

1,1 Mac Pro (2006)
4GB RAM
Dual 5150's dual core@2.66Ghz (total 4 cores)

HDD:
2) 128GB SSD's in a RAID0 array (added upon delivery)
1) 250GB 7200 RPM

Video Card:
NVIDIA GeForce 7300 GT

CS5 Settings:
History states 1
Cache Levels 4
RAM for PS at 3800MB


Original results:

CS5 Settings:
History states 1
Cache Levels 4
RAM for PS at 3800MB

Time: 27s

PS CS5 test from Macrumors:
Post #1027
Link

Updated to:

2,1 Mac Pro (EFI update from netka)
3.0 Xeon X5365 Dual Quad cores (8 cores)
12GB RAM
2) 128GB SSD's in a RAID0 array
1) 250GB 7200 RPM (22,000 hrs)
1) 500GB 7200 RPM (45,000 hrs)
1) 1TB 7200 RPM (35,000 hrs)
1) 2TB 7200 RPM SATAIII (500 hrs)

Video Card: Nvidia GeForce GT 430

Results:

20.7 seconds

Not bad for a 7 year old computer!

GB 2 went from 5601 to 10657
 
12 Seconds.

iMac 3.4GHz Sandy Bridge
Vertex 4 512GB SSD as scratch disk and boot disk
32GB Ram
2GB Radeon 6970m


Same time if I set PS to use 70% of RAM
If I set history states to 50 then time went up to 13 seconds.

Just sold this machine and will be replacing it with a rMBP
 
GermanyChris said:
Ivy is just not that impressive..

time for a de-lid and some more hurts
Click to expand...

New result: 8.5 seconds.

I turned up the overclock a bit more, so the multiplier is 44 (didn't fancy taking it much higher on air cooling). OS X reports it as 4.3 GHz. Everything else as before (SSD, GTX 670, 16 GB)

edit: It's actually 4.4 GHz in the system profile, but About This Mac gets it wrong
 
garnerx said:
New result: 8.5 seconds.

I turned up the overclock a bit more, so the multiplier is 44 (didn't fancy taking it much higher on air cooling). OS X reports it as 4.3 GHz. Everything else as before (SSD, GTX 670, 16 GB)

edit: It's actually 4.4 GHz in the system profile, but About This Mac gets it wrong
Click to expand...

Which air cooling?

About this Mac will never report more than 4.3
 
GermanyChris said:
Which air cooling?

About this Mac will never report more than 4.3
Click to expand...

It's a Noctua NH-C12P. It's a huge heatsink so I guess it would probably go higher but I read that Ivy can be unstable over 4.5GHz unless you start increasing the voltage, which might give me a heat problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back